__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

The simple fact that you said you wanted to be asked to elaborate, were asked to elaborate, and then whined that you were being asked to elaborate shows that you are, indeed, a liar -- you never wanted to elaborate, you wished to continue making strawman arguments, sitting atop your soap box to tell the forum how perfect your version of AnCap is, while contradicting yourself, even the foundation of what you say you're for, at seemingly every turn. What you had said was "reasonable," to ask you to "square" comments, turns out to mean that you think being asked to "square" your comments is trolling -- oddly enough, responding to what you asked for by trolling as you post "troll song" videos.

Lets try yet again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

California made the gun illegal to own--there was no grandfathering in, no selling to other Californians. Why do you care. Where's the relevance?

Are you stating that you had no choice if you wished to abide by the law but to turn the Armalite lower receiver over to the police for destruction? You stated that you could not sell to other Californians, was that your only choice? What year did you buy your Armalite AR-15 type rifle, and when did this law go into effect?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

Anenome, you wanted to be asked to elaborate, and you're being asked to elaborate:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

California made the gun illegal to own--there was no grandfathering in, no selling to other Californians. Why do you care. Where's the relevance?

Are you stating that you had no choice if you wished to abide by the law but to turn the Armalite lower receiver over to the police for destruction? You stated that you could not sell to other Californians, was that your only choice? What year did you buy your Armalite AR-15 type rifle, and when did this law go into effect?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

If black lives matter to you, you wouldn’t use violence to punish nonviolent behaviors. As the late Philando Castile’s mother said, “He lived by the law, he died by the law.” The law – the mechanism by which we maintain peace in our society – betrayed him. But this is not an alien construct that has imposed itself upon us. No, we are all complicit in a law that has enshrined chaos as justice.

Some of us scapegoat the policemen we hire to carry out these chaos-causing anti-laws. Some scapegoat the victims of these chaos-causing anti-laws. But rarely do we ever step back and see the cause for what it really is: our ancient, universal need to use violence and domination to subdue those who disagree with us. Whether it’s the drug user, unlicensed driver, prostitute, tax objector, or raw milk seller – we insist on blindly using violence: hiring armed agents to subdue, capture and cage nonviolent human beings.

Of course, none of us would barge into these people’s homes or cars ourselves with firearms drawn. None of us would do it on our own if we lived on an island with these persons. Not one of us would put our knee on the back of our neighbor’s neck, electrocute him, draw a gun, kidnap him in a cage in the back of our car and place him in a shame cage with actual violent persons, leaving him unable to protect himself from further collective violence and assault. None of us would do that to neighbors we found using drugs in their home or selling raw milk from their cow or being too greedy with how much of their labor they wish to pay the collective. But get a group together, get a mob or a crowd, or, even better, a cast of 50 million anonymous voters involved, and suddenly we become possessed – suddenly things we would find repulsive to do ourselves magically become “law and order.” This “law,” this addiction we have to using collective anonymous violence to dominate nonviolent people, betrayed Philando Castile when it sent an armed man to take money from him so he would fix his taillight. And it will betray us all if we do not repent of it and exorcise it out of our civilization.

Every time you vote or sit on a jury that results in the continuance of laws that initiate violence for nonviolent behaviors, you murder your brother...

Anenome, you wanted to be asked to elaborate, and you're being asked to elaborate:

Keep in mind this is the person that equated living his life in the US is the equivalent to being a jew in a nazi concentration camp. You really can't make up the stupid that falls out of Anenome's mouth on a daily basis.

Anonymous issued an ancap-style video teaching voluntarism and the correct definition of anarchy

__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

You do not attack the ideas that I say that I support. You instead try to twist what I have said into things that I do not support, and then you attack those. This is the classic strawman attack.

But even beyond that, I say that I want a society of pure voluntarism, and yet I am attacked as supposedly an authoritarian. And the so-called evidence to support this is misquoted, taken out of context, etc.

You're attacking authoritarianism, anyone can do that. But you're not actually attacking what I say I am for, voluntarism. Because you know it cannot be done, that it is inherently ethical. Let us see you try to attack voluntarism for once; you cannot do it.

And that is my victory over you, that through all your attacks you cannot attack what I actually believe in. You do not take me head on, ever.

You do not say a COLA is a bad idea because of X idea I actually support, you merely deny that a COLA can do what I say it can do, or in some other way take it out of context.

This is the harbinger of long-term victory, when your opponents do not attack, at all, what you actually believe it. And the desperation you guys have gone to is also telling, trying to paint me as an authoritarian, as a pedo-supporter--how ridiculous. You crossed that line into attacks that no reasonable opponent does. You made it personal, out of your desperation to make me go away. But I didn't, and I won't.

And you lost respect for yourselves while you did it--you know what you did were some serious dick moves that in real life would likely start real fights.

You will not get another discussion from me, as if you were honest participants in a mutually-respectful debate--I know you're not capable of that on this topic, unless you apologize and actually take head on the idea that I say I am in favor of.

If you want to critique my beliefs then critique voluntarism. And where you think you find something non-voluntary, ask about it, don't do the asshole thing and leap directly to accusations of authoritarianism. Quit your gotcha bullshit of mashing together 6 different quotes from over 5 months of conversations--that's rookie bullshit.

I know you will not do any of this however, and that is your fault, and your failure as a decent human being. Maybe you'd better think about why these ideas are so threatening to you that you decided to destroy the messenger.

__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

You do not attack the ideas that I say that I support. You instead try to twist what I have said into things that I do not support, and then you attack those. This is the classic strawman attack.

No. When I point out how you contradict yourself, proposing two conflicting ideas, that's a shot at the ideas. If a person were to say they were going to build some object by combining two parts that they themselves say are incompatible, that's an issue with the idea. Where you seem to get confused is that it's then pointed out that you wish to do many of the very things - see: your dreams invading the Middle East to produce regime change - which you blame as being the source of the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

But even beyond that, I say that I want a society of pure voluntarism, and yet I am attacked as supposedly an authoritarian. And the so-called evidence to support this is misquoted, taken out of context, etc.

You're not misquoted -- you're directly and correctly quoted. You have this habit of declaring that some sort of context existed when it did not. Example? See when you declared you were talking about these uncontacted tribes during your pro-pedo posts when you had never mentioned them -- until you declared you had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

You're attacking authoritarianism, anyone can do that. But you're not actually attacking what I say I am for, voluntarism. Because you know it cannot be done, that it is inherently ethical. Let us see you try to attack voluntarism for once; you cannot do it.

You're not for pure voluntarism, you are for authoritarianism -- per your own standards. I have attacked you for not being what you said you were. Why would I attack you for being for pure voluntarism when you're not for pure voluntarism? You've even claimed exceptions to voluntarism. What does that mean? You're not for pure voluntarism. You've also cheered Bean on as a "hero" for forcing his views against the will of the parents and what they consented to -- you're support of this was that Bean was taking a risk of getting into trouble and you don't like the Catholic Church, so it's fine to do what you yourself said was authoritarian; when it was someone taking such action to prevent a child from being placed in a marriage with a pedophile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

And that is my victory over you, that through all your attacks you cannot attack what I actually believe in. You do not take me head on, ever.

Hahaha. Really? The idiocy that you just posted about how you think making all the roads private could possibly prevent "100%" of terrorism was picked apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

You do not say a COLA is a bad idea because of X idea I actually support, you merely deny that a COLA can do what I say it can do, or in some other way take it out of context.

Once again, you cannot read. I've stated the issue with COLAs -- the abuse, like today's systems are abused. You obviously don't know what the word context means. I've actually, on many occasions, stated that you're an example of why your entire fantasy is a bad idea -- you're a complete hypocrite, who is regularly caught lying and refusing to be held accountable for his own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

This is the harbinger of long-term victory, when your opponents do not attack, at all, what you actually believe it. And the desperation you guys have gone to is also telling, trying to paint me as an authoritarian, as a pedo-supporter--how ridiculous. You crossed that line into attacks that no reasonable opponent does. You made it personal, out of your desperation to make me go away. But I didn't, and I won't.

Haha, of course. It's like playing chess against a pigeon with you -- you'll walk and shit all over the board, declaring victory. Just two pages back the very core of your idea was critiqued:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC

It's interesting that you view direct quotes of you as "strawmen." You haven't answered anything, you merely attempt to claim you were speaking about a set of rules you'd prefer -- which isn't discussing AnCap at all, that would be discussing what you view as the perfect set of laws.

You state that a person simultaneously possesses complete sovereignty over their body and their property, yet if a person, as seen in the wanderer scenario, wanders onto another person's property without signing some consent form, the property owner's rules, with one exception, do not apply on their own property. That exception? They're allowed to enforce immigration controls as far as deporting a wanderer, but that's it -- and use "only enough" force to deport the person.

You, in your best imitation of a political double-speak, then claim your original claim - that a person simultaneously possesses complete sovereignty over their body and their property - is still in tact despite showing that it is not. Lets make it simple:
If a property owner cannot apply their rules to the fullest extent that they choose if someone wanders onto their property, as you said they may not, then that property owner doesn't hold complete sovereignty over their property.

After that issue, you've already stated there are "exceptions" to requiring consent before a law is applied to people. More troubling than your emotional smoke screen in declaring such a law, something you decry when others do, was the fact that you went full-on pedophile in saying that a girl's first period makes her an adult that's "ready for sex" and based off of that you had never supported "sex with 'children'" -- these children were now adults, meaning that you, as a 39 year old male, would not being having sex with a child despite if she was only 9 years old, as long as she had her first period.

Your response to a critique of the core of your very idea, you know, what you claim never happens? Here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Enjoy wasting your time 'refuting' strawmen.

What you claimed you actually believed in was being discussed -- you refused to discuss it. If it's the "harbinger of long-term victory when your opponents do not attack, at all, what you actually believe in," then it's the harbinger of doom for your idea when you refuse to defend it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

And you lost respect for yourselves while you did it--you know what you did were some serious dick moves that in real life would likely start real fights.

Uh, you called people baby-rapier and the like, but now you're complaining about what people are saying on a message board? I see you're back to playing the internet tough guy you were complaining about feeling other people were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

You will not get another discussion from me, as if you were honest participants in a mutually-respectful debate--I know you're not capable of that on this topic, unless you apologize and actually take head on the idea that I say I am in favor of.

Hahahaha. This must be the harbinger of doomTM for your idea!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

If you want to critique my beliefs then critique voluntarism. And where you think you find something non-voluntary, ask about it, don't do the asshole thing and leap directly to accusations of authoritarianism. Quit your gotcha bullshit of mashing together 6 different quotes from over 5 months of conversations--that's rookie bullshit.

It's been critiqued -- over and over. I just recently had critiqued the foundation of your idea, you refused to provide an answer. As for the so-called "gotcha bullshit," you always get upset when you're shown to have contradicted yourself or to simply being doing what you say people shouldn't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

I know you will not do any of this however, and that is your fault, and your failure as a decent human being. Maybe you'd better think about why these ideas are so threatening to you that you decided to destroy the messenger.

You support pedophiles, anyone that's read those quotes knows where you fall on the "decent human being scale." Ironically, after you just refused to response to a critique to the foundation of your version of AnCap, you're projecting that others are fearful.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

No it's not. It's not an attack on voluntarism to misunderstand some aspect of my proposal as not-voluntaristic, as you have done numerous times, and attack it on that basis.

Yes, it is a critique on voluntarism. What is pure voluntarism to you? According to you, it's your version of AnCap. This, of course, isn't true per your own words. Here is how:

You've declared that there are exceptions to requiring consent in your system where you see fit. With the addition of those exceptions to requiring consent before you apply rules to others, you've destroyed the pure voluntarism, but you contend that it remains intact -- a claim which has been shown to be objectively wrong. This snowballs into other problems. Here is how:

If you are capable of making rules and applying them to others without their consent, as you stated you could as evident by your declaration of exceptions to requiring consent before de facto laws created by you apply to others, others would have that same ability unless you were somehow in a position of authority over them. Claiming that you were only speaking of COLA rules you'd agree to does not save you from this problem; if it were merely part of a COLA, it wouldn't be an exception to requiring consent. So, unless you hold some position of authority over others just because, they should have the same ability to declare exceptions to consent and apply them to you. This, of course, snowballs into another issue:

Ethics are something you've proudly declared to be nothing more than subjective views. Yet your exception to requiring consent is based upon your own subjective ethical views. If you have the ability to create de facto laws based upon your subjective views and apply them to all without need for consent, all others have that same power; ISIS would then be just as justified in apply their laws onto everyone else if you were to maintain a consistent view.

This doesn't even get into the complexities of forcing other norms onto people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

No, I don't. And again, my rubric for adulthood would put most people as adults around age 22-24, whereas you support the 18 rule, which makes you much closer to a pedophile supporter than me.

You do support pedophilia. You've stated you felt as long as the parents were okay with putting their child into a relationship, then you have no problem with it. You've stated that the arrival of a girl's first period made her an adult and based upon that belief of yours, a 39 year old having a relationship with her would simply be two adults in your eyes. Even your rubric, which I've pulled apart before for lacking consistency and not being in line with what you said you were saw no problem with, allows for pedophilia. If an 8 year old girl created an app that made created enough income for her to live off of (remember: you also claim that the cost of living with be significantly cheaper) and she had her period, she's an adult ready for sex even in your rubric. You are a pedophile supporter, and you're quite possibly one yourself -- the screen grab of you telling a 16 year old girl "Damn girl. You trouble-hot." was disturbing to say the least. If you think that's an appropriate way for a 39 year old to talk to a 16 year old girl, especially one he is aware is a 16 year old girl, ask yourself if you would have thought that was okay to tell her in person. Would you have felt it appropriate for you to tell her that in person, Anenome?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

You've declared that there are exceptions to requiring consent in your system where you see fit. With the addition of those exceptions to requiring consent before you apply rules to others, you've destroyed the pure voluntarism, but you contend that it remains intact -- a claim which has been shown to be objectively wrong.

You don't understand. Voluntarism can only begin when two people are willing to make an agreement.

You posit scenarios where one person is already invading the claimed property of another and then cast that as a problem for voluntarism--voluntarism has already broken down in that scenario, you have now a situation of outright conflict.

Agreements begin when war stops, and when war begins, agreements are out the window as well.

If someone simply attacks you or your property, you have no choice but to defend yourself with force as well.

But this is not how most human interaction goes, because war is expensive. It's better for both sides to peacefully get along. That is where voluntarism begins.

Quote:

You've stated you felt as long as the parents were okay with putting their child into a relationship

And what was my example? It was two 16 year olds or w/e age I said, 13 maybe, who have 6 months to live due to cancer or somesuch, are best friends and want to get married before they die.

Are you suggesting that is an example of supporting pedophilia??? Ridiculous.

And I do not support any "putting into" a relationship by parents, the teens would have to want it willingly, and I suggest parents should have veto power over all relationships of teens until they are adults just like now, but in some extreme situations such as the 6 months to live example, that it would be an injustice to prevent pre-adult teens from marrying, such as that 6 months to live example, with parental consent.

This is not the same thing as supporting pedophilia. Are you willing to say that you oppose the example I gave? That there are zero extreme situations where you're fine with marriage of a pre-adult teen? That would make you an extreme tyrant.

Quote:

You've stated that the arrival of a girl's first period made her an adult and based upon that belief of yours, a 39 year old having a relationship with her would simply be two adults in your eyes.

That is a lie. I was talking ONLY about biological aspects in that quote and believe mental, spiritual, emotional, and financial aspects are equally important, and the rubric for adulthood I have given many times is not a biological-only rubric. You know this, I've said this many times. You continue to repeat it like a pathetic asshole simply to slur me. And I never said anything like a '39 year old having a relationship with her would simply be two adults in your eyes.' That is completely manufactured bullshit that you just made up on the spot, a complete fabrication. That is the opposite of what I believe.

The only reason you guys had anything to say at all about this is because I considered an emancipated teen that was adult enough to hold a job on their own and live on their own would be mature enough to make their own sexual decisions. You guys accused me of thereby wanting teens to have sex with 40 year olds, a scenario that I had not even considered. Agreeing with you that this was disgusting, I added to my rubric to prevent such a situation from occurring, the two year rule and the like, prohibitions against relationships with people over 18. Yet you refuse to let it go. Because it's not about the truth with you, it's about tarring me personally.

Again, you know this. I have said this many times. You have read me say this, that I am in every way against pedophilia. You only parrot your line to slur me because you're an asshole and a terrible human being.

You don't understand. Voluntarism can only begin when two people are willing to make an agreement.

I do understand what voluntarism is. When you say there are exceptions to needing consent before a rule is applied to someone, which you did say, then you've removed this pure voluntarism that you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

You posit scenarios where one person is already invading the claimed property of another and then cast that as a problem for voluntarism--voluntarism has already broken down in that scenario, you have now a situation of outright conflict.

Agreements begin when war stops, and when war begins, agreements are out the window as well.

If someone simply attacks you or your property, you have no choice but to defend yourself with force as well.

But this is not how most human interaction goes, because war is expensive. It's better for both sides to peacefully get along. That is where voluntarism begins.

This wasn't what I was referencing when talking about your declaration of exemptions to requiring consent. Regardless, this scenario was yet another example of where you issued rules without consent:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

Quote:

For as many - or as few - protections that citizens and illegal aliens are automatically afforded today, there is no such thing in this fantasy -- everyone is supposedly the supreme ruler of their territory. If a person were to wander onto a rancher's ancap property, that rancher is supposedly allowed to enslave them, murder them, rape them, etc (in no particular order). It's their land, their rules. However, in the United States even illegals are given certain protections; criminals are given protections (sometimes to absurd levels, in my opinion).

False, because again we're talking about the rule of owners over their own property, and all people own their body first and foremost. Even if you wander onto X property, the owner cannot enforce his rules on you unless you agree to them. If you refuse to agree, the most he can do is use enough force to make you leave his property and no more.

This is the same rule that we have now, it's called trespassing. If a business doesn't want you on its property, it doesn't rape and enslave you, it asks you to leave and if you don't it call police who specialize in removing people within the bounds of the law.

As has been shown to you before, this goes against voluntarism; the property owner, according to you, cannot enforce his rules on his own property until a point of your choosing. That means that the property owner is, for some unknown reason, subject to rules created by you on his own property, and that property owner no longer maintains sovereignty over his property. Oddly enough, you unwittingly undermine your own position by admitting that is like the same rule we have today in the United States -- rules, otherwise known as laws, that are forced onto property owners without consent. This rolls into another issue:

If you claim that a person holds complete sovereignty over their person and their property, the two are incompatible once a conflict like the one above occurs; and both become null. Why? The wanderer's body is experiences force at the hands of the property owner without consenting to that force; the property owner experiences rules - laws - governing his behavior on his own property without his consent. In your effort to have both, you've destroyed both. If a person has complete sovereignty over their body, then you cannot apply force to them without their consent. If a person has sovereignty over their property, they may enforce their rules whenever and however they want on their property.

And what was my example? It was two 16 year olds or w/e age I said, 13 maybe, who have 6 months to live due to cancer or somesuch, are best friends and want to get married before they die.

Are you suggesting that is an example of supporting pedophilia??? Ridiculous.

And I do not support any "putting into" a relationship by parents, the teens would have to want it willingly, and I suggest parents should have veto power over all relationships of teens until they are adults just like now, but in some extreme situations such as the 6 months to live example, that it would be an injustice to prevent pre-adult teens from marrying, such as that 6 months to live example, with parental consent.

This is not the same thing as supporting pedophilia. Are you willing to say that you oppose the example I gave? That there are zero extreme situations where you're fine with marriage of a pre-adult teen? That would make you an extreme tyrant.[/quote] Look no further than my signature to see where you "couldn't say" that there was anything "inherently immoral" about "marrying off" girls after their first period. You were correct that there were many cultures which did this, as I linked you the article "Millions of Young Girls Forced Into Marriage." You responded by citing a self-proclaimed "Islamic Apologetics Blog" to say that God approved of your views:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

How old do you think Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus? She was probably about 14.

Do you still not know what pedophilia is? I've provided you with the definition many times, but you still seem to think it means anyone who is under the age of 18 that has sex. Despite your flailing around, your views continue to be disturbing. Here is another example of your support for pedophilia:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

Pedophilia is an adult having sex with a child. If someone becomes an adult before they're 18, how could it be pedophilia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

That is a lie. I was talking ONLY about biological aspects in that quote and believe mental, spiritual, emotional, and financial aspects are equally important, and the rubric for adulthood I have given many times is not a biological-only rubric. You know this, I've said this many times. You continue to repeat it like a pathetic asshole simply to slur me. And I never said anything like a '39 year old having a relationship with her would simply be two adults in your eyes.' That is completely manufactured bullshit that you just made up on the spot, a complete fabrication. That is the opposite of what I believe.

No, it's tragically not a lie. The simple fact that you endorsed little girls being married off after their first period (averaging at age 12, with it not being uncommon to happen at age 8) as not being inherently immoral. Did you think these little girls had the financial, emotional, mental and spiritual aspects of their lives matured enough for marriage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

The only reason you guys had anything to say at all about this is because I considered an emancipated teen that was adult enough to hold a job on their own and live on their own would be mature enough to make their own sexual decisions. You guys accused me of thereby wanting teens to have sex with 40 year olds, a scenario that I had not even considered. Agreeing with you that this was disgusting, I added to my rubric to prevent such a situation from occurring, the two year rule and the like, prohibitions against relationships with people over 18. Yet you refuse to let it go. Because it's not about the truth with you, it's about tarring me personally.

No, you showed yourself to be pro-pedophilia when you said there was nothing wrong with marrying girls off after their first period. You were linked an article about the cultures doing this, in which the girls are raped by actual adult men, and you strangely believed pointing to the birth of Jesus was a strong rebuttal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

Again, you know this. I have said this many times. You have read me say this, that I am in every way against pedophilia. You only parrot your line to slur me because you're an asshole and a terrible human being.

You've simply tried to change the meaning of pedophilia to suit your apparent needs; if they have a period, they're an adult according to you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

Pedophilia is an adult having sex with a child. If someone becomes an adult before they're 18, how could it be pedophilia.

When does someone become an adult? Notice the quotation marks you placed around children:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Again, I have tied adulthood to menses in women, which can occur as young as 13. You got a problem with that, take it up with biology. I have never endorsed marriage with "children."

You've decided it was a good idea to parrot the lie that 13 was youngest a girl's period could arrive -- the average is 12, with it not being unheard of to occur at age 8. Not to worry, this third quote shows you've tripled down on the idea that a girl's period makes her an adult. Combined with your reasoning that a period makes a little girl an adult and that two "adults" (my quotations, not yours -- you save those for children) having sex can't possibly be pedophilia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone

Again, when your own body says it's ready for sex, via arrival of menses, I say you're no longer a child biologically. That's an objective biological measure of "ready for sex." That is also the cross line from child to woman [adult], biologically. Thus, I have never supported child sex.

Using your view, a 39 year old male trying to have sex with an 8 year old girl who had her period wouldn't make that guy a pedophilia, the 8 year old became "an adult before" she turned 18 according to your views. Disgusting.

Where do pedophiles rank on the "terrible person" board?

Also, you failed to answer this from the last post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC

You are a pedophile supporter, and you're quite possibly one yourself -- the screen grab of you telling a 16 year old girl "Damn girl. You trouble-hot." was disturbing to say the least. If you think that's an appropriate way for a 39 year old to talk to a 16 year old girl, especially one he is aware is a 16 year old girl, ask yourself if you would have thought that was okay to tell her in person. Would you have felt it appropriate for you to tell her that in person, Anenome?

Well, would you thought that to be an appropriate thing to say to her?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

Mary Ruwart is a university professor, and the first thing she asks her incoming students is this question:

'If you could choose your government, which would you have, one where the majority is ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against another?'

At this point, they do not know what the libertarian philosophy is, unless they've been exposed to it before, and yet she finds 90% - 100% vote for the statement that represents the libertarian philosophy.

Then she asks, what do you think the US government does today, which one most closely matches our government? And none of them pick the libertarian philosophy.

People get excited about this philosophy, it makes intuitive and immediate sense to them; it's only when they hear the implications of it that they get confused, because they have been indoctrinated with other ideas culturally, as a function of status quo bias.

__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

People get excited about this philosophy, it makes intuitive and immediate sense to them; it's only when they hear the implications of it that they get confused, because they have been indoctrinated with other ideas culturally, as a function of status quo bias.

Of course! Everyone else is biased except for you. How could anyone possibly disagree with you unless their biases didn't allow them? Sure, you contradict yourself constantly, refuse to answers questions after you state you wanted to be asked questions, and many of your claims - see: Anenome on history and Islam - are blatantly wrong, but, hey, it's just biases holding people back.

California made the gun illegal to own--there was no grandfathering in, no selling to other Californians. Why do you care. Where's the relevance?

Are you stating that you had no choice if you wished to abide by the law but to turn the Armalite lower receiver over to the police for destruction? You stated that you could not sell to other Californians, was that your only choice? What year did you buy your Armalite AR-15 type rifle, and when did this law go into effect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC

You are a pedophile supporter, and you're quite possibly one yourself -- the screen grab of you telling a 16 year old girl "Damn girl. You trouble-hot." was disturbing to say the least. If you think that's an appropriate way for a 39 year old to talk to a 16 year old girl, especially one he is aware is a 16 year old girl, ask yourself if you would have thought that was okay to tell her in person. Would you have felt it appropriate for you to tell her that in person, Anenome?

Do you think that telling a 16 year old girl "Damn girl. You trouble-hot." would be something appropriate for a 39 year old to do in person?

Lets be clear here, you clearly indicated people should only say online what they would say in person:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

And you lost respect for yourselves while you did it--you know what you did were some serious dick moves that in real life would likely start real fights.

It seems that based upon that belief you would apparently think it's okay to go around telling girls you knew were 16 years old "Damn girl. You trouble-hot." as a 39 year old male.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

Yet again the argument is an attack against me personally, not about the ideas. Lol, you never change, and you cannot take on the ideas, you can only try to smear me.

And your obsession with this silly pedo-accusation is way overdone dude, no one buys it, everyone sees it for what it is. And I have to wonder if you're obsessed with it because you're doing some shit you shouldn't be doing yourself. Maybe you are the real pedo in this conversation.

__________________Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

Yet again the argument is an attack against me personally, not about the ideas. Lol, you never change, and you cannot take on the ideas, you can only try to smear me.

The "ideas" were taken above; you collapsed back to your usual useless rhetoric, unable to "square" your version of AnCap when it was challenged. Now you dismiss criticisms as being simply due to biases, which, of course, isn't taking the challenges on. You're continuing to do exactly what you cry foul over.

QUOTE=Anenome;2446364] And your obsession with this silly pedo-accusation is way overdone dude, no one buys it, everyone sees it for what it is. And I have to wonder if you're obsessed with it because you're doing some shit you shouldn't be doing yourself. Maybe you are the real pedo in this conversation.[/quote] This is one of your worst arguments to date. You advocate in favor of pedophiles, that disgusting position is pointed out, and your defense is this? You're truly slow. Now, people need not wonder if you're doing something wrong -- seeing proof of a nearly 40 year old male desperately taking to the internet to tell vulnerable 16 year old girls "Damn girl. You trouble-hot." is wrong.
Also, your claim that "no one" believes the object evidence shown iis problematic for two reasons: That's an objectively false claim, as others have called and/or questioned if you're a pedophile; and, being as you claim to be an individualist, how can you possibly claim to be an authority capable of speaking for a collective group without their expressed consent to do so?

Are you going to answer the question if you think it would be appropriate to tell a 16 year old girl "Damn girl. You danger-hot." when you're just shy of being 40 years old?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

I do not and never have. Name a single pedophile I have ever advocated for. It does not exist.

Quote:

seeing proof of a nearly 40 year old male desperately taking to the internet to tell vulnerable 16 year old girls

Maybe you're unfamilair with Reddit so I will clue you in. It was a sub called /r/amiugly, where the purpose of the sub is for people to post photos of themselves and get an answer as to whether they are ugly or not. There is nothing wrong with answering the girl's question, and my answer was phrased the way it was, again, because you could not tell from her photos that she was 16. We only know that because people list ages. I called her jailbait in a colorful way.

To back up this assertion, I gave several quotes from other people in that same post, all backing up the fact that she did not appear to be underage, many also calling her jailbait:

Quote:

DieFledermouse 3 points 9 months ago:

This is exactly how Chris Hanson catches predators.

Another:

Quote:

[deleted] 1 point 9 months ago

You could fool so many people....8.5/10 + look 18+ imo

Another:

Quote:

IAmAndWillAlwaysBeMe 0 points 9 months ago

I don't think it was because of looks since you look hot. i just can't believe you are 16.

No what precisely is your problem with calling someone who looks 18+ jailbait in a colorful way.

The sub has an anti-creepy-pm policy. If I was PM'ing girls to hit on them, I would have been banned already.

Your reddit allies have already combed through my entire reddit history on two accounts, over 5 years now of activity, and the worst you can find it calling a single girl jailbait in a colorful way, and that is not my only post on /r/amuiguly either.

You are unable to show anything like a pattern of hitting on women there, much less underage girls, many of which I have commented on, on /r/amiugly before.

I wish the girl had not deleted her photos so you could see just how laughingly wrong you are. No one would call someone a pedophile for calling a girl that looks 18+, I thought about 22, that she is attractive. That girl undoubtedly gets hit on by adults in the real world who cannot see the fact that she is 16 as easily as we can in that thread. And again, I was not hitting on her, it is not a sub for hitting on women, and I have never hit on anyone in that sub across all my replies.

I mixed a compliment to her looks with the fact that she doesn't remotely look underage. I also don't think my age has anything to do with it. If I were 21 or 61 one, an attractive women is an attractive women. If she had looked like a scrawny 13 year old pre-teen, you would have an actual point, but that was not who I was calling hot in the slightest.

Now again, what exactly is your problem with that.

This is an incredibly weak accusation, yet you have harped on it for months. Either it confirms you as a hater, which I admit is likely. Or you are one of those people who attack strongly what you hate about yourself. Maybe both.